Whatever. If that's what it takes to make people act rationally, then I hope everyone gets very tired of me.

You know, I'm not asking people to go and live in caves. I'm just asking them to stop wasting energy. It's a simple matter of changing a few patterns of behavior, no asceticism whatsoever. It's not like we can prevent climate change but we might be able to prevent so-called 'positive feedbacks'.

0) would you be willing to use shared computer resources? I.e. not fully own your own computer or at least not all the CPU cycles/storage/memory that you use.

We already do - Google, Medline, ... All use remote storage/CPU cycles.Would I give up local storage of my data and the programs needed to access it - no. (A distributed system is one which won't work because of the failure of a computer that you know nothing about.)The balance here depends more on the cost and speed of communications vs. transportation vs computing hardware. So far computing has gotten cheaper faster than communications or transportation.

Quote:

1) Would you be willing to limit your computer use to X hours / week (on average) to limit it's energy use?

Seems like a bit of a red herring - most of the time most people spend using computers the computers aren't busy. Limiting hours of use is mostly a savings on power for the display hardware. (Rather than saying no idling - make more sense to make computer more efficient at idling, or give it something else to do while idling.) Doesn't make much sense to limit how much time I can use the display - Keeping me warm takes a lot more energy than keeping a display going while I am using it.

Quote:

2) Would you be willing to limit your re-purchase cycle to Y years and not upgrade until the minimum safety time has passed? This could mean passing up on "revolutionary" faster cpus/gpus/hds, etc and having a relatively "slow" computer compared to the best available.

Time between purchases doesn't seem like a good metric here. Using second hand equipment is often more cost effective than buying new for most uses. Doesn't mean passing up on revolutionary advances, just means getting them after they are no longer bleeding edge.

Quote:

4) Would you be willing limit the power of your computer if it means staying under a certain limit of power draw and material intensity load (due to mfg/logistics)?

Isn't this one of the main themes of SPCR already?

Continued exponential increases in population will require exponential improvements in energy efficiency, conservation, food production, etc. to maintain the status quo. Sure, we need to improve efficiency and reduce waste in day to day things, but we also have the opportunity to stop the exponential growth in the number of consumers in a humane and considered way before the usual forces of disease and starvation do.
The big question is are we willing to plan our families? To decide in advance whether/when to have children and how many to have, taking into account the environmental, social and economic impact that they have. And to do what is necessary to implement those plans.
Almost half of pregnancies in the USA are unintended.
For each child you don't have that is another 80 person-years of computer purchases/ownership saved.

Human population growth is not exponential, and whatever statistic you pulled about "accidental" children in the United States (a) sounds dubious without more backup, and (b) certainly does not describe "exponential" growth of population in the U.S. (which is not experiencing exponential growth!).

Population growth is certainly a pressing issue, but from a computing POV the parts of the world where population growth is a problem are not where the computing resources are being disproportionately spent.

With respect to overpopulation in underdeveloped parts of the world, Bill Gates was convinced that improving health would, paradoxically, help curb that growth, ergo the focus of the B&M Gates Foundation.

Waste is the natural unfortunate byproduct of prosperity. These resources only become an issue when supply is suddenly not there. Think 1972 and 1980 oil crisis.

Despite $3/gal prices obviously poor people wait in gas lines for up to 20 minutes with their engines running because cost is obviously not the issue as long as they can buy as much as they want. I've seen people leave their cars running in the parking in the winter while they food shopped to keep the interior warm. If they are not concerned about the tax on gas should I be concerned for them?

We live in a society where people drive around a parking lot 7 times to get a good parking space. Then they walk as little as possible into the gym to use the treadmill. What's wrong with this picture?

You don't ask an oil person if we're running out of oil, you ask a geologist. You are looking for an objective answer, aren't you? You don't believe everything a used car salesman says, why would you believe what an oil man has to say? The more you stick with him the more he gets.

When you want a good energy policy you don't get Dick Cheney to do it and then cloak it under the flag of national security.

Tax on vehicles should be based on mpg and emissions. Old cars should become too expensive to drive and recycled.

You know what I see in central NY? Syracuse and Utica have no real employers and no real economy. There's a low standard of living for the state of NY. Everyone has to drive. The cars are rusted out, the fuel tanks leak, and the smell of raw gas is everywhere. These 2 cities and others like them, are ecological disasters, and yet the people there are only concerned with smoking, drinking, pork, corn, and Harleys. And they won't change.

Thanks to huge price drops in plasma screens my friend just bought a 60 inch plasma. He now uses 500 watts just to watch the evening news, and in the summer the extra heat will add to the AC costs. How does that equate to Mike C's pc that's drawing half as much while it folds?

I wonder why non active PFC power supplies have not been banned?

_________________People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither﻿ patriots nor human beings.

Last edited by aristide1 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The current non-mention of Power Factor Correction in the Energy Star draft is something of an oddity. PFC is mandatory for any >75W device in most other industrialized nations, including Japan, China and the EU. Why not make it part of Energy Star at least? Active Power Factor Correction, in particular, has the potential to greatly reduce harmonics and other garbage in the AC lines.

It may have something to do with the current administration not being particularly concerned about stuff like this.

The tremendous growth in human population in the last century or so is fit rather well by an exponential curve. (Doubling every so many years). This has been well documented - check Malthus, Ehrlich, etc.

(b) certainly does not describe "exponential" growth of population in the U.S. (which is not experiencing exponential growth!).

If you check the figures (e.g. US census bureau) you will find that the US has been experiencing exponential population growth. (see rate above) The rate is not as large as in some countries, but it is higher than in many more developed nations.

Quote:

Population growth is certainly a pressing issue, but from a computing POV the parts of the world where population growth is a problem are not where the computing resources are being disproportionately spent.

With respect to overpopulation in underdeveloped parts of the world, Bill Gates was convinced that improving health would, paradoxically, help curb that growth, ergo the focus of the B&M Gates Foundation.

Human population growth is a problem over most of the world - and especially in the US. Individuals in the US use a lot more resources and energy than those in most other parts of the world, which magnifies the impact of US population increases on the environment. (While the US has a bit over 1/20th of world population, it uses a vastly larger proportion of the world's energy.)

Since the US couples a very resource and energy intensive lifestyle with
one of the larger and faster growing populations among more industrialized nations, the case has been made that the US is
The most overpopulated nation.
http://www.npg.org/forum_series/ehrlich.htm

Nah, China & India win that one by a country mile. OK, they don't use much resources on a per-capita basis at the moment, but they are going to want to in the future, and there are a lot of capitas! Together they account for about 40% of world population. US is very sparsely populated compared with Tokyo,HK,Holland,even Germany, Belgium and UK. US is #172 on list of countries by population density, however this stat is probably skewed by Alaska.

If not for current immigration the us population would be no growth at all. The same is generally true for western europe. I believe that Italy is worried about population decline. Japan has little immigration and is definitely looking at population decline. Malthus's predictions did not come true long ago. Population concerns are only reasonable if directed towards underdeveloped countries as politically uncomfortable as that may be.

The suggestion that we should stick to usage and process fixes and ignore "techno-fixes" is dead wrong and is a symptom of the disfunction that has lead to our current woes. There is undoubtedly wasteful and abusive behavior in the US, But the best we the concerned can do about this in our own personal actions is to make wise purchases and check the air in our tires. The absolute best we can do is express the political idea that technology is neutral. It is our use and development of technology that makes our world better or worse.

The root cause of our problems is political apathy at the national level(US). We have the "techno-fix" right now for reduction of carbon emission. It is nuclear breeder reactors.

So the best I can do is purchase as wisely as possible(I welcome the idea for the new website), pay attention to habits and hardware in my home, advocate for suv's to be classified as cars rather than trucks, and advocate for nuclear breeder reactors.

I use no power management for my computer. If I am using it I turn it on. If I am not using it I turn it off. That includes my monitor. My power supply leaks power but that keeps the motherboard battery from dying as quickly and allows me to use the power switch on my keyboard. The monitor is turned off at the power strip as well as other external powered items such as hubs. This configuration sill use less power when the computer is not used than any idling scheme.

We have the "techno-fix" right now for reduction of carbon emission. It is nuclear breeder reactors.

Breeder reactors have basically 3 problems: public acceptance, economics, and the fact that they are an unproven technology (commercially). Theoretically the public should welcome a (well-designed) breeder reactor, because it reduces the waste problem to negligible levels, but we know the debate on nuclear power is not always based on rational considerations.

considering how much money is channeled into renewable energy research, it seems almost criminal that breeders have been neglected almost totally. This is because the green movement is fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy in any form.

Public perception seems to be in a transition period right now. For instance there have been some articles about nuclear power on the radio program "Living on Earth" (www.loe.org). This is a great radio program. Perhaps when ecopcreview is in full swing they can make loe aware of the site to get a mention.

Hope that didn't come across as over-critical. Just meant that within the
context of SPCR, the idea of compromising on speed/etc. for other factors
is fairly standard. (Of course for those touting computers it is a different story.)

Since you asked, I have given some thought to the question. Here is a suggestion:

Mandatory 10 year warranty on consumer electronics

Warranty should:
* Include parts and labor
* Include batteries.
* Be transferable without paperwork (i.e. follows the device/components)
* Service on-site (at users option) for items over x lbs (e.g. 30)
if within y miles of a population center.
* If service by mail, manufacturer covers postage both ways.
* Need not cover damage from mis-use or accident
* Should also require that supplies (batteries, cleaning supplies, media,
etc.) be available for at least that long.

Rationale:
+ Discourages disposable electronics
+ Encourages design and manufacture for longevity and repairability
+ Encourages standardization of parts (e.g. batteries)
+ Helps ensure parts availability for repair/replacement
+ Enables/encourages continued use
+ Boost market for second-hand (encourages re-use)
(Increased cost of new, can get parts, repairs, won't be stuck with
disposal costs if it can't be fixed or when no longer useful)
+ Provides employment in user nation
(i.e. not just wherever cheapest to build a factory to manufacture)
+ Allows early adopters/those who need the latest/fastest/whatever
to make that choice. (As compared to rationing.)

I was looking at televisions the other day.
90 day warranty on a $1,000 TV seems absurd.
Our 25 year old TV is starting to go on the fritz.
Are the ones nowadays built to last that long?

Our old waffle iron from '50's or '60s burned out recently.
It had a metal case, and screws so you could open it and clean it/fix it.
New ones have plastic cases with no obvious way to open them.

Similarly the typical life-span of camcorders is ridiculous.

There might be objection that a measure like this would increase the
prices - but given the bent of the country where I live (USA) towards
capitalism, economics seems an appropriate way to encourage reduction
in over-use.
* Getting increased quality (better design/MFG)
* Help curtail the glut of consumer electronics.
* Encourage more careful shopping/consideration of need.
* Consumer electronics is mostly luxury goods
(nobody needs a TV/stereo/ipod/toaster/...)
* Still get low cost items through second hand. (Trickle down * Make it more economical to change the battery on a watch, rather than
buying a new one. (It can't possibly be less costly to the
environment to make and distribute a whole watch with battery than it
is to just make/distribute the battery.)

Something like this seems easier to implement than the limits on time
or repurchase suggested in the initial article.
* How would one implement limits on how often a user could buy/upgrade?
* How would would limits on use/day be implementable without
unduly affecting usability? (Who would want a computer that would shut
off and say you can't use it anymore today just as you were about to print
your taxes/finish that report/present your thesis/...)
* Also, if I can't use the computer - what will I do? Go play with an
electronic game machine, watch TV, ... Limiting the use of one device
may just mean more devices.

10 years because we have 10 digits. (i.e. slightly arbitrary, but should be a significant period.)

In last few years our local solid waste utility has started imposing fees for
proper disposal of CRTs, computers, microwaves and various other
electronics. This discourages people from disposing of things properly
(increases dumping), and discourages re-use/repair. (Where
one might have taken an old computer to recondition or salvage parts,
now it means you have to pay to get rid of it. So fewer people will
recondition old machines, and less market for second
hand machines. You can't hardly give them away.)

I realize suggestion goes beyond just green computing, but it is a
process/usage changer (not a techno-fix), and computing is subsumed by this proposal.

No claim to this idea being radical in the sense of new. If anything it
might be radical in sense of being old (recycled?), and therefore not in
with the cult of new.

Hope that didn't come across as over-critical. Just meant that within the context of SPCR, the idea of compromising on speed/etc. for other factors is fairly standard. (Of course for those touting computers it is a different story.)

Nah, it's good to be critical. Important topic and all.

I think youre suggestions (snipped) are good.

However, I should point out the obvious.

They are all consumer oriented demands to the manufacturers/designers.

However, these are mostly fixes that consumers cannot implement. We can demand them, but not implement them. That is the job of the industry and the legislative bodies.

Without getting into the argument how difficult it is to pull off the above, I will just say all of the above would be more than welcome and is probably even needed (based on the literature of LCA/factor-literature I've read).

0) I already do. My email is in Google's hydro powered data center, and my CPU is used 95% by Stanford University ([email protected]).

2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot. Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?

3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems. Plus, Apples are just plain a lot smaller, so they have a smaller material and shipping impact. I love Apple's eco-friendly systems. They help the electric bill too. I'm not saying they are perfect, they are not, but they are the most eco-friendly computer maker that I know of. The greenpeace study did not factor in electric useage.

4) That makes no sense. My current 500W machine would be outperformed by a Mac Mini (60 wattsish total) or Macbook (50 wattsish) that draws 1/10th the power.

How's anyone going to limit the amount of time anyone computer is on? A good approach would be for Dell (and everyone else) to put their new EnergySmart system into consumer PCs, and have them go to sleep in 15 minutes. Most people are too lazy to change the defaults, so their computers would go to sleep.

Environmentallism can be done in an American and capitalistic way. If the US creates green technologies, and uses tham internally and exports them, our economy will grow, and we will prosper.

The whole thing about OSes is interesting. The big issue is not that they require fast machines. The Mac Mini is a fast machine. It is bit rot. This is another reason that Macs are better for the average Joe. They don't really rot out like Windows. Windows gets tray goo, serivces running willy nilly, registry gunk, startup crud, and bit rot. Thus, people think they need a new computer every two years, when in fact, they do not. They really just need to reinstall Windows, but they are too stupid to know that they need to do so or to google how to do so.

I would need to buy a new computer every 9 months if this were the case. I just stick in the Windows CD, and go. It is a pain though, so I will eventually swtich to Mac. Microsoft could fix this by going away from the current registry based architecture that is such a mess.

XP is perfectly useable on a PIII-866. People need to learn how to do fresh installs.

We definitely need more capitalistic incentives. I think that we should center fuel economy on 50mpg. Then, for every MPG less than 50, there is a $1000 tax. That Hummer just went from $60K to $98K. Then, for every MPG over 50, you would get a $1000 credit. Prius just went from $25K to $15K. Then, it would be re-centered every year or two, and the MPG would go up rapidly. Eventually, it would center at 100-150mpg, the cars being EVs or plug-in hybrids. And no, it is not pollution elsewhere. Using nighttime extra capacity, it is lower emissions, even coal is 1/3rd the CO2 for an EV than a gas car, AND you can use nuclear plants to make the juice.

We also need to BAN things like incandescent light bulbs. They are just so 20th century. CFLs are short term. LEDs are the long-term.

Biofuels make sense when combined with plug-in cars that are much smaller. For an average of 200 miles for every gallon of biofuel. The rest would come from rods of uranium in nuclear reactors, with some wind and solar thrown in for good measure.

The sad irony of the climate prediction is that we are predicting the climate while putting out more CO2 by running our computer. I am also appalled at some of the DC nuts who run like 10 systems just for DC, 24/7/365.

In terms of off-grid PV its all about the batteries. Grid-tied is more practical though, as you can sell back power the utility when it makes the most difference, and then pull extra capacity off the grid at night.

I find Bill McDonough absolutely fascinating, but some of the stuff that he proposes would need to completely reshape the entire American (and world) way of living. If it could be done in a big city, with everyone there on board the plan, it would be super cool.

I see a lot of school waste too. At my high school, a lot of the computers have no power maagement at all. I am going to approac the administration about this and a bunch of other computer issues. I took things into my own hands, and got the admin password (it was LM hashed, these people are either complete idiots, or just don't care, probably both), and put 10 minute sleep on 25 machines.

Something like 65% of all power used by computer is used when they are doing NOTHING. Thats pretty bad. If most machines were 20W machines and had good sleep settings, a lot of the power comsumption issue would be gone.

Another place to look at for computer power is data centers. They require a lot of cooling, and have many machines running 24/7. They use as much power as the state of Utah. AISO.net has done some neat stuff in this area, including VMWareinizing a bnuch of their servers. The technology AND the eco-friendliness of their operation is extremely cool. Meanwhile, the idiots at 1&1 built a data center in Kansas because of its "superior energy capabilities", and aren't making any of their own power from renewables or buying RECs. They are just using coal, coal, and more coal. ugh.

The longer term answer to power worldwise is nuclear. It is clean, safe, and can provide a lot of power on a 24/7 basis. I say safe living 35 miles from two plants. The issue with expanding them, in the US at least, is NIMBY. Personally, I want one in my backyard (well, Ok, not literally, but close would be awesome!). Couple that with biodiesel plug-in hybrids, and we could go a long way towards reducing CO2 emissions. Nuclear is the only technology that can supply the energy needs of big countries like the US and China, and we need a program to expand it to 3500+ reactors worldwide.

Population growth is a huge problem. The Bush administration is stopping real sex ed, instead promoting abstinance-only sex ed which DOESN"T WORK. We need good sex ed in schools, and cheap and available contraceptives, ECPs, and abortions. In terms of family planning, it should be patriotic to only have one or two kids. It is becoming an economic reality for many to limit family size, however, as it is just too damn expensive.

Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?

3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems. Plus, Apples are just plain a lot smaller, so they have a smaller material and shipping impact. I love Apple's eco-friendly systems. They help the electric bill too. I'm not saying they are perfect, they are not, but they are the most eco-friendly computer maker that I know of. The greenpeace study did not factor in electric useage.

4) That makes no sense. My current 500W machine would be outperformed by a Mac Mini (60 wattsish total) or Macbook (50 wattsish) that draws 1/10th the power.

You quoted 500 watts several times, but the true power draw would be nearer 120 watts, not 500 watts. Just because you have a 500 watt power supply doesn't mean the consumption is ANYWHERE near that. As for manufacturing versus power consumption, I've read that it takes 10 times as much power to produce a consumer electronic device as it will consume in it's lifetime, making the consumption rate irrelevant compared to the manufacture of the device.

2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot.

How old is that iBook? My laptop is six years old this month and shows no signs of disintegrating.

Bigg wrote:

2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot. Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?

Even with two CRT monitors, there's no way a Dell machine breaks 400 watts at idle unless they're like 24". Did you check the wattage rating on the screens? Then add 120 watts (max) for an idling Northwood system.

Bigg wrote:

3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems.

I'd be interested in finding out which Dell systems use 150 watts in idle? The XPS models maybe. Not the general purpose ones. Certainly not the new ones with C2D inside.

Yeah, I know. It has a 300 watt PSU, which at one point had three HDDs, three optical drives and 10 fans. I completely busted the "you need a 300+ watt power supply for a normal system" myth. It is a Seasonic, however, so it can REALLY deliver 300 watts, if I had that kind of hardware. It now has two HDDs, two opticals, and 8 fans. I am counting my 19" CRT and my 17" CRT in that number, so it is a very realistic guesstimate. I would guess that the tower itself is pulling 130WDC, 190WAC, assuming ~70% efficiency on the PSU.

@qviri:

The iBook is 2.5 years old. I had to replace the HORRIBLE Toshiba drive in it, and with 56 screws in it, it wasn't quite the same after. That could be part of it, but it also is just wearing out. I move it around and use it a lot.

The main problem, however, is that it is architechturally obsolete, and it is too weak to be my main machine. The 500W machine is my main rig. I love it, but it is not portable, and having two machines drives me nuts, as even with a strict organizational scheme, there is always discontinuity between them. I need to get a Macbook or Macbook Pro that is my only machine. The 500W machine is also a Windoze box, so it needs wayy too much maintenance.

The 500W machine is a custom-built with a 2.4C PIV, Corsair XMS, dual 120's RAID 0, an ATI 9600PRO, a fan controller with blue lights, the whole nine yards (in its time). The 19" CRT (Viewsonic) and the 17" CRT (Dell, recycled from an old machine) both put out a HUGE amount of heat. 500W total is a conservative number.

I also have to figure in the 5.1 speakers, printer, scanner, 2 external HDDs that normally are off, but the bricks are connected whenever the PC is on, a USB hub, and a mouse with its own brick (its wireless).

All of that, except for the mouse charger, is off at night when I shut down, and flip the switch on the strip. The mouse charger has to be on all the time so that it can, well, charge. This machine was built for performance at a reasonable cost, before I was eco-aware. This will be my last desktop machine, and my last Windows machine other than a server or media center machine well in the future.

When you count a CRT in, 150 watts is a conservative number. 100 watts is probably closer for the newest breed of LCD equipped C2D machines. I suppose 100 watts is a more realistic number for new machines, the machines I am familiar with are all CRT equipped with PIVs.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum